A new Gallup poll shows that most college presidents don’t think much of President Obama’s plan to “make college more affordable” by rating them.
The Obama plan relies on metrics to determine which colleges are best and most affordable and assumes that student consumers will use this information to make better choices.
Somehow, this process is supposed to make college “more affordable,” although it does nothing to actually lower the cost to students.
According to the account by Scott Jaschik in Inside Higher Ed,
Most college presidents doubt that President Obama’s plan to promote affordable higher education will be effective, or that it will lead students to make better informed choices. Further, they expect that the wealthiest colleges and universities will be most successful in the ratings system Obama has proposed.
Those are the findings of a poll by Gallup and Inside Higher Ed of American college and university presidents, which attracted responses from 675 of them. Gallup has a 95 percent confidence level that the margin of error is plus/minus 3.8 percentage points. The presidents were given complete anonymity so they could answer without regard to the politics of opposing a plan that has become a top priority for the Obama administration.
The plan — proposed in August — would, among other things, create a new rating system for colleges in which they would be evaluated based on various outcomes (such as graduation rates and graduate earnings), on affordability and on access (measures such as the proportion of students receiving Pell Grants). Then the plan would link student aid to these ratings, such that students who enroll at high-performing colleges would receive larger Pell Grants and more favorable rates on student loans.
Only 2% of the college presidents said the plan would be “very effective.” Another 32% said it would be “somewhat effective.” Only 16% said the plan was a good idea.
One of the criticisms of the Obama plan from the start is that it would favor the wealthiest institutions, which tend to attract the best-prepared students (and so have high graduation rates), enroll students who are well-connected (which, combined with their good preparation, lands them good jobs) and have the endowments to support generous financial aid packages. Fifty-two percent of presidents agree or strongly agree that wealthier institutions will fare best under the Obama ratings.
Molly Corbett Broad, president of the American Council on Education, said that the results were consistent with what she is hearing from college presidents, which is a lot of concern “about unintended consequences that may come from a well-intentioned set of metrics.” She stressed that most college presidents are “fully aligned with President Obama’s ultimate goals — expanding access and making college more affordable.”
But she said that there are doubts among many presidents both about the idea that these data will help students, and that ratings can be done correctly. She noted that most colleges already share considerable data — often covering information similar to what President Obama says should go into ratings. “But there’s not much evidence that the array of key data metrics that most institutions routinely post have made a huge difference,” she said.
At the same time, she said she worries about the impact of ratings. If one looks at existing rankings systems, most college leaders “are skeptical but we pay a lot of attention to them.” Broad said that she feared a new ratings system might have create the wrong incentives. “There’s a real concern that some of the measures might cause institutions to alter their admissions and aid awarding in ways that don’t advance access to low-income college students,” Broad said.
Secretary Duncan defended the approach of the Obama plan. He assumes that data–as in Race to the Top–will solve all vexing problems.
If college costs are too high, wouldn’t it make sense to increase student aid, instead of collecting more data and trusting to the marketplace to magically lower costs?
Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/12/16/most-presidents-doubt-obamas-plan-promote-affordable-higher-education#ixzz2neXL6NEs
Inside Higher Ed
When Irene Pepperburg’s brilliant parrot, Alex, died–the parrot who had learned thousands of words, how to invent novel sentences, how to add and compare and contrast–the Guardian wrote about “the passing of a parrot smarter than most U.S. presidents.” College presidents need to tell the U.S. president to shove it. The presumption of this move on Obama’s part is breathtaking.
I tend to agree. And if they do tell him to shove it, maybe it will shine some light on the fact that he needs to shove it when it comes to K-12 too; it’s just that K-12 does not bring up the same type intellectual territorialism that higher Ed does. I am glad he is trying this because it highlights the tendency for his administration to overstep their bounds in terms of education in general. College level presidents will have more clout in saying no and are more likely to do so, I think, because they are less likely to be snowed by intellectual traps just because there is money involved (not always, but certsit more often than those leading K-12 down the RttT and CCSS garden path).
I really wish Obama’s “measure it and it will improve” strategy really worked. I could use a bigger house. And I have a tape measure. But funny thing, I’ve measured it so many times and it doesn’t grow.
Now, how can I blame that on teachers?
great line, Dienne!
I know some men who might have similar wishful thinking. heh heh
🙂 sorry. crass humor.
😉
Obama and Duncan are total idiots–I don’t care who they are and what schools they went to. They continue to undermine democratic ideals because they are both on the take from Wall Street interests.
If they want to help college students, work to make student loan debt dischargeable in bankruptcy. Considering the dwindling prospect of people, especially older people who are still saddled with student loan debt that they can no longer pay, it’s time to change bankruptcy law.
I am referring to dwindling job prospects that make it nearly impossible to pay back student loans, including federal loans.
Instead, they want to pull the same nonsense U.S. News and World Report does with their idiotic college “rankings.” It’s an attempt to turn education into a market based, “consumer-based” enterprise rather than as a public service to serve the needs of a democratic society.
Susannunes: Hasn’t the Obama administration pushed the market model as hard as possible in K-12 education? Why should we be surprised that they want the same metrics-based consumerism in higher education? This is Race to the Top for higher education without the money.
You are absolutely right, Diane. This is just as bad if not worse than RTTT.
Diane, money will play a major role in this scheme though, because the DoE is going to leverage its power by determining who can and cannot obtain federal financial aid based on those college rankings.
Do you understand what the end-game really is? It’s very difficult for me to comprehend how any of this is supposed to bring down tuition.
Diane, It’s hard to believe that this is merely about blind faith in competitions and the invisible hand. People who have the power to call the shots try to manipulate markets, so what do you think the financial payoff is –and for whom?
Is this about the Powell Memo? That focused almost as heavily on higher ed as it did on calling corporations to arms, so neo-liberals were bound to eventually get around to trying to control colleges: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/
“One of the criticisms of the Obama plan from the start is that it would favor the wealthiest institutions, which tend to attract the best-prepared students (and so have high graduation rates), enroll students who are well-connected (which, combined with their good preparation, lands them good jobs) and have the endowments to support generous financial aid packages.”
Gosh, where have we heard that before!
Don’t forget the practice of “zip-code mining.” They want families who keep giving!
Paul
“. . . that students who enroll at high-performing colleges would receive larger Pell Grants and more favorable rates on student loans.”
Ah, that long lost 11th commandment: “May the richer get richer and prosper on the backs of the slugs.”
There are reforms coming to University of California system as well, so I believe there will be fewer spots left for professors and other employees of UC system. I wonder if some people are trying to serve the master harder to keep their spots. How to otherwise explain the motives behind the recent Reform support by two Berkeley math professors Hung-Hsi Wu(Wu is currently co-Faculty Advisor on the Berkeley Campus of California Teach) and Eugene Frenkel who promote Common Core, school privatization, scripted lessons, and the high ed reform, etc? Hung-Hsi Wu used to stand against New Math in the past but now we see 180 degrees turn on his side. Hung-Hsi Wu is extensively traveling and propagating Common Core in CA and other states. Parents, especially of Chinese origin believe him very easily.
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/2011/10/straight_up_conversation_berkeley_math_professor_emeritus_hung-hsi_wu_on_the_common_core.html
He is preparing the new textbooks for the Common Core Math it seems…
http://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hunghsi-wu/
====================================================
http://ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/bios/wu.html
Hung-Hsi Wu has been Professor of Mathematics at the University of California at Berkeley since 1973. He got into mathematics education in 1992 in response to his observation of obvious problems in the teaching of mathematics in schools, including the school mathematics curriculum, textbooks, and professional development. Although he started off as a part time critic, soon he was devoting all his energy to working with the state of California in the rewriting of California’s 1999 Mathematics Framework, the state adoption of textbooks, California’s Standards Tests, and the California Mathematics Project (the state’s agency in in-service professional development). Since 2000, he has given summer professional development institutes for elementary and middle school teachers, first with California’s Mathematics Professional Development Institutes, then with the Los Angeles County Office of Education. He was also a member of NAEP’s Mathematics Steering Committee, 2000-2001, that contributed to the revision of the NAEP Framework. He was a member of the National Research Council Mathematics Study Panel that wrote the volume “Adding It Up,” and is currently a member of another National Research Council panel which is in the process of writing a volume on the preparation of teachers.
Wu is currently co-Faculty Advisor on the Berkeley Campus of California Teach, which is the program created at the request of Governor Schwarzenegger to increase the production of mathematics and science teachers by the University of California system. His main effort in recent years has been directed at the writing of several textbooks for professional development of K-12 mathematics teachers.
=============================================
Or may be he was hired to support the reforms? Please forgive my ignorance.
Preeti
Somehow their math education got stuck at the level of 2+2=4. Certainly their understanding of the utility of statistics seems to stop at that level.
Although I voted for the President, his educational agenda is becoming tedious — his entire arsenal of ideas rest with testing, ranking, and sanctioning. None of these offer substantive solutions for improving our educational system. You would think that viewing the kind of education his daughters are receiving from a progressive school like Sidwell that he might have a little more sophisticated view of teaching and learning. Unfortunately, his advisor on these issues, Arnie Duncan, views schooling through the lens of whatever foundation has invited him to their convention gatherings.
Obama knows exactly what he’s doing. We can’t blame it all on Duncan. In fact, we can blame Duncan himself on Obama.
This is a tough question. Many students are marketed to heavily, especially by for-profit institutions. I would like to find some sort of way to provide consumer protections or more information to students. I don’t know how to do that, though. As this post already states, the rating system will just give more favor for elite institutions. When I worked in admissions at a so-called elite institution, we were flat out told that we should be very cautious about accepting students who had a sick parent, were the main English speaker in their home, etc. because the school “would not be a good match for the student and lead to frustration.” (Read – Student more likely to drop out, transfer or take more than 4 years to graduate and affect our ratings.) Even with financial aid, there are lots of reason students from lower socio-economic backgrounds might be derailed (e.g. can’t afford transportation back to school after a break), and something like this program will just exacerbate the differences.
But shouldn’t wealthier institutions that can afford to charge students less and provide more student support be favored by a system designed to help students evaluate their options?
Totally NUTS!
This is like weighing a malnourished “being” rather than feeding them.
Meant malnourished “BEINGS”…
Yvonne Siu-Runyan: or like trying to fatten a pig by weighing it.
😎
I would say it is more like weighing the pig before you charge the family.
Duncan said, ““Does anyone think parents and young people have enough information today to make really thoughtful, informed choices, or that the system is as easy to navigate as it should be?”
Gee, I got a wealth of information from my high school guidance counselor about college options and finances years ago –and my counselor even talked with my parents about it all. Why should today be any different? I think Obama and Duncan are targeting the wrong people.
Why go after “consumers”? Why compare the (typically lower) salaries of graduates with degrees in human services fields and Liberal Arts with those in other fields like and engineering and business? And how is any of this going to lower the cost of college? I don’t understand their thinking or their real motives. What’s the hidden agenda?
This is corporate undermining of the intellectualism. I was part of discussion the other day where someone said “Why would you even study philosophy anymore- can’t get a job with that…” It (naturally) saddened me to see how that thought system is possessing (like a demon) the U.S. This is the goal of the corporate reform movement, all choices should be made with a mind toward your worth as a consumer and producer. Not on what will enrich you as a human…
Sadder still is that we won’t (as Bill Gates tells us from his exulted perch) see the effects for 10 years or so… right about the time the last global warming denier is convinced, and there is no one with the creative brain power to solve the problem.
Perhaps Arne & Co could measure the folly of sending billions of student loan funds to phoney for-profit “colleges,” saddling unsuspecting students with worthless degrees and tons of debt while the “administrators” dance away with the bucks.
Why don’t they just come out and say what they mean “We don’t give a shit about anyone but those with the most money, the most advantaged, the most toys, the most power, etc. . . F. .k everyon else, they can eat sh.t and die.”
Due-ane!
You must be very angry at this point. I share your anger also . . . .
“about unintended consequences that may come from a well-intentioned set of metrics.”
No kidding, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. When did university professors become such wimps to not intellectually attack and destroy these schemes? Are they that cowed also? Or are they all neo-liberals these days????
75% of college professors in the US today are off the tenure track, hired as contingent faculty, working semester to semester without any job security whatsoever, for low pay and no benefits.
Typically, about 70% of revenue goes towards employee pay and benefits in businesses. If colleges are claiming that the majority of their revenue pays employees, you’d have to look at the 25% tenured/tenure track faculty, athletic coaches, crony politicians turned “professor”, and the salaries of senior administrators, especially college presidents.
Take a look at the link provided in this article from today’s Trib to a list of college president’s pay identified in the Chronicle’s “annual study”:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-college-presidents-salary-met-1216-20131216,0,4721852.story
As the parent of a college student, I totally agree that many aspects of higher ed need fixing. Unfortunately, what I’ ve seen of Duncan’s plan looks like it will be made worse. Gaming the US News rankings has needlessly infreased higher ed costs. Doing things like building fancy climbing walls to increase number of students applying for each spot moves the college higher up in the rankings, and just raises costs.
Congressman Miller in CA is soliciting input on the effect of so many adjuncts on higher ed quality.
I didn’t believe my kids when they told me college is overrated figuratively speaking. Today, some will be over and some will be underrated literally.
Duane Swacker: if I may inject a little Banesh Hoffman into this discussion—
“The most important thing to understand about reliance on statistics in a field such as testing is that such reliance warps perspective. The person that holds that subjective judgment and opinion are suspect and decides that only statistics can provide the objectivity and relative certainty that he seeks, begins by unconsciously ignoring, and ends by consciously deriding, whatever can not be given a numerical measure or label. His sense of values becomes distorted. He comes to believe that whatever is non-numerical is inconsequential. He can not serve two masters. If he worships statistics he will simplify, fractionalize, distort, and cheapen in order to force things into a numerical mold.” [THE TYRANNY OF TESTING, 1964, p. 169]
Standardized testing lends itself quite easily to abusive labeling, sorting and ranking. True believers in its Magical Omnipotence can easily “buy into” an abusive college ranking system that also labels, sorts and ranks.
After all, when there’s so much $tudent $ucce$$ at stake…
😎
I think the next “bubble” will be the higher education bubble. It’s only a matter of time. The “free market” is allowing presidents of Universities to keep hiking tuition, which ultimately equates to higher profits for our government through loans (to the tune of over 40 billion just recently). It’s win-win for all involved, except for the consumer.
My immediate reaction is to think that Obama wants CONTROL over academic “freedom” and this is his means of doing so. A lot of corporations controlling the overseeing of data will profit enormously. Obama’s MO is very much akin to how this whole RTTT fiasco started. University presidents are smart to stop the nonsense before it has a chance to start.
It was only a matter of time that higher ed would be pelted with the standarization phenonema. Obama thinks that following the Asian way of ranking colleges will work for us. Unless parents will sacrifice their hard earned money by going broke to send their kids to Obama’s highly rated colleges, his policies will backfire. Additionally, how is he going to give out subsidized loans for “highly rated” colleges? On top of that there may not be enough “college ready” kids to enter these colleges. And if colleges don’t have enough enrollment to pay the bills, they will lower the entry point system. The system is gamed.
There are entire shelves in bookstores dedicated to ranking and comparing colleges. Adding another ranking will likely have little impact on where kids choose to go to college, but it might serve to highlight different aspects than US News and World Report’s ubiquitous set of rankings. I think you might see something more like the Washington Monthly ranking, which can be found here:http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/toc_2013.php
Here is my “common core” research paper I would assign to high school students: “If Martin Luther King could come back from the dead, what would he say to Obama in regards to his “leadership” as president and why”? The only problem would be that these students have never read a full length document, essay or book original source. They have been educated to read Pearson excerpted passages from a host of “pre approved” ones designed to enable them to pass a high stakes test. They would not be allowed to read anything remotely considered controversial nor would their school library probably have access to many original source books or allow them to read them. In LA they can use Pearson software to “research” on their new i-pads. They cannot express themselves all that well because they have no experience with the nuances of language as is learned when on is allowed to read freely and to actually study grammar. Wow.. common core is just that..
I kind of like the dictionary definition of the verb “to core”…
verb [ trans. ]
remove the tough central part and seeds from (a fruit) : peel and core the pears.
Is this what we want for our nation? Hollowed out brains?